So your contention to “compare and contrast” is that Delaware North is willing to give the trademarks back to the NPS at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor’s Complex, but not at Yosemite? That would be incongruous. It would also be comparing apples to oranges.
The trademarks that were to be sold were not ones such as “Yosemite”, “El Capitan” and “Half Dome”. Otherwise, the NPS would have also changed those names, but didn’t. That would have been apples to apples.
“This is a predatory business practice at taxpayer's potential considerable expense. Full stop.” How is it predatory?
It’s not the taxpayers paying the fees unless the Feds want to acquire the assets not currently owned. It would have been the successful bidder on the concessionaire contracts that would have been required to buy them.
The assets at issue were not owned by the Feds. As such, Delaware North’s Fifth Amendment rights would be violated in the scenario of the Feds seizing those Delaware North-owned trademarks at issue without just compensation.
As shown by many in this thread, although the contract called for Delaware North to get paid for what they had to buy, they are going to be the bad guy as all of these name changes will not be popular with visitors to Yosemite National Park.